Posted 24 July 2007 - 08:28 AM
21 February 2006
Mrs G Mitchell
Dear Mrs Mitchell
1 refer to your recent email of 17 February 2006, addressed to the Chief Executive. Dr White has asked me to respond to the additional points in your letter that were not addressed by her letter of 16 February 2006.
You have asked for a return to the "1982 Act provisions /or ... cover and entitlements". I am sure that you will appreciate that the legislation under which ACC operates has been amended several times since 1982. On that basis, it would be completely inappropriate for the Corporation to attempt to frustrate the clear intent of Parliament
If your current action is predicated on the assumption that ACC will be persuaded to act ultra vires by ignoring the current legislation, then I advise that 1 cannot assist. ACC must implement the provisions of the current Act, and has no ability to revert to the provisions of the 1982 Act (which was repealed in 1992).
You have also requested the "abolishment" of the Initial Occupational & Medical Assessment processes. Again, 1 must provide the response that the assessments are a legislative requirement ACC cannot abolish the assessments, and must continue to apply the legislation as enacted, until it is changed by the legislative.
In respect to the review system, Disputes Resolutions Services Limited (DRSL) was incorporated to manage individual applications for review in an independent manner. Reviewers are, by virtue of the legislation, independent of both ACC and their employer, DRSL. Neither ACC nor DRSL can include any aspects within their employment contracts that constrains or influence Reviewers' decision-making.
I do not share your view that the current process is unfair, illegal, self-seeking, or unethical. As an option exists to appeal review decisions to the District Court, a proper process is currently in place for the judiciary to ensure decisions are made in accordance with the legislation.
You have also sought "an immediate investigation into the shoddy and degrading ... case management system." As noted by the Chief Executive, in her letter of 16 February 2006, the Auditor General published a report in 2004 following such an investigation. The report noted:
"Overall, ACC's case management practices are thorough and worked well, and ACC staff have a professional approach. ACC places emphasis on performing its legal functions ands duties, and sometimes claimants do not fully appreciate the legal limitations placed on ACC sla/jf, and what they can provide. However, we consider that there are some areas where ACC can improve, particularly in the way it communicates with claimants."
I acknowledge that the Auditor General's report included some recommendations on improving ACC's case management practices, and I am pleased to confirm that these recommendations have been adopted.
I trust that this letter, together with those sent to you on 15 & 16 February 2006, have addressed the matters you raised in your email of 17 February 2006.
I do not see any support for your accusations of impropriety by ACC. Should, however, you have incidences of inappropriate conduct by ACC, 1 am willing to consider any evidence you would like to submit to me, for my consideration and any necessary action.
Yours sincerely
Gerard McGreevy
General Manager, Rehabilitation Operations